Consumers express views on farm animal welfare

Oct 10, 2007, Feedstuff ... Perhaps the most contentious and emotional issue in livestock agriculture is that of farm animal welfare. Modern animal production practices are regularly criticized by animal rights groups, defended by livestock industries and studied by scientists. The animal welfare debate is far more than a war of words. It has led to legislative action and is influencing consumer demand in a way that could profoundly affect agricultural markets. Noticeably absent in the debate are consumers. There is no larger group of people more affected by farm animal welfare policies and no single group that has been more ignored.

To give consumers a voice, we conducted a nationwide telephone survey of U.S. consumers early this summer. This article summarizes the results. Interested readers can download the full research report at asp.okstate.edu/baileynorwood/AW2/AW2Main.htm.

While farm animal welfare is of the utmost importance to some people, it is unclear how the general public ranks it as a social issue. To answer this question, respondents were asked a series of questions measuring the importance they place on the following social issues: poverty, health care, food safety, the environment, the financial well-being of U.S. farmers, food prices and the well-being of farm animals. A statistical analysis was used to assign each issue a number indicating its importance relative to the other issues.
 
Profitability: The results show that farm profitability has an importance score of 8.16, which is almost twice that of farm animal welfare's 4.25. This implies that, for the general public, the financial well-being of U.S. farmers is twice as important as farm animal welfare. For policy, this implies that legislation intending to improve animal welfare is only desirable to the public if it imposes little financial harm to the farm sector.

Food prices were roughly equivalent in importance to farm animal welfare, whereas food safety and the environment dominate people's concerns relative to the other food issues. Issues directly related to human welfare (poverty, health care, food safety) were roughly five times more important than the well-being of farm animals.
 
Housing: Many in the livestock industries contend that the most important factors concerning animal well-being (besides obvious factors like food and water) are shelter, comfortable temperature and protection from fellow animals. These factors take precedence over outdoor exercise, ability to exhibit normal behaviors, etc.
Do consumers concur? To answer this question, survey respondents were guided through a series of questions to measure which factors they deem most important for ensuring animal welfare. Nine factors were evaluated. Consumers indicated a preference for pasture/outdoor systems of production, rating the ability to exercise outdoors higher than protection from other animals, shelter, comfortable temperatures and comfortable bedding.
Thus, it is little wonder why consumers are appalled at gestation stalls and battery cages. Consumers associate low standards of care with lack of outdoor exercise. It is worth noting that while consumers indicated that housing chickens in cages and sows in crates is inhumane, informing people that such practices protect animals from hurting one another increased the acceptability of cages significantly. Another reason people likely disdain cages is that 81% of consumers agree with the statement, "Farm animals have roughly the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as humans." When imagining how they would feel trapped in a gestation crate, they likely project those same feelings onto the sow.
 
Role of markets: Of the more than 1,000 survey respondents, 52% believe their personal food choices have a large impact on the well-being of farm animals (only 36% thought it did not).

When asked whether they agree with the statement, "Food companies would voluntarily improve animal welfare, and would advertise as such, if people really wanted it," 32% strongly agreed and 36% agreed. Only 23% strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement.

This result parallels the arguments about the lack of healthy food at fast-food restaurants. While people complain that fast-food burgers and fries are unhealthy, when these restaurants introduce healthy foods like the McLean Burger, they systematically suffer low sales.

However, while consumers have confidence in markets to respond to consumer demand, they simultaneously support government involvement.
 
Government involvement: A majority -- 68% -- of respondents believe the government should take an active role in promoting farm animal welfare, and 75% said they would vote for a law in their state requiring farmers to treat their animals better. If consumers believe markets can address animal welfare concerns, why would they also request government involvement? There are at least two possible explanations.

First, the term "farm animal welfare" can have a number of interpretations. People may interpret it to include basic animal cruelty, such as health neglect and lack of feed, which rarely occurs on for-profit farms. Typically, state or local government agencies enforce laws against animal cruelty, so respondents may consider this a natural function of government.

Second, the survey suggests that compassionate animal treatment is a basic human value, as 95% of respondents agreed with the statement, "It is important to me that animals on farms are well cared for." The laws a government passes reflect the values of its constituency, so respondents may feel it important to codify this value into law, even if it is ultimately unnecessary.
 
Higher food prices: Some consumers indicated that they will pay higher prices for improved farm animal care. For example, when presented with the statement, "Low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farm animals," 76% of people disagreed.

However, such questions are hypothetical and subject to what we call a social desirability bias. Respondents often give survey administrators answers that they feel creates a good impression, like showing compassion for animals. Since they can express such compassion at no real cost to themselves, they overstate their willingness to pay higher food prices. One way to mitigate this bias is, instead of asking people how they personally feel about an issue, to ask them how they think the average American feels.

Indeed, when presented with the statement, "The average American thinks that low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farm animals," only 24% disagreed. Thus, consumers probably overstate their willingness to pay higher food prices in exchange for better animal treatment.

This calls into question other studies suggesting that 33-55% of consumers will pay a 10% premium on food that is labeled humane.
 
Other findings: Individuals believe that farm animal welfare is a concern even in the presence of human suffering.

If farmers are forced to increase their production costs to comply with more stringent welfare standards, they should be compensated.

Consumers understand that agriculture is a business, with a majority saying farmers and food companies put their own profits ahead of treating farm animals humanely. A farm that treats animals well but cannot turn profits will not be able to treat animals well for long. Nor are they naïve about the relationship between animal welfare and food prices, as a majority understand that animal welfare improvements will raise prices.

Not surprisingly, consumers have a bias against corporate farms.

Food safety, food taste and animal welfare are not separate issues, with a large majority of respondents believing meat is safer and better tasting when raised under high welfare standards.

Finally, consumers are mixed over whether animal welfare decisions should be made by experts or public opinion.